The arbitrary repossession and sale of a financed vehicle without issuing prior notice or adhering to due process, specifically in continued violation of an existing court injunction, constitutes deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

*************

ORDER: (HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)

01. This appeal is filed U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by appellants/opposite parties praying this Commission to set aside the orders dated 29.11.2019 in CC No.24 of 2018 passed by the District Commission, Mahabubnagar in the interest of justice.

02. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite party as arrayed in the complaint.

03. The case of the complainant is that she is the owner of Bajaj Auto Rikshaw bearing No.TS-06-UA-1597, that the same was purchased for self-employment to be driven by her husband. That the cost of vehicle was Rs.1,50,000/- and that she had paid a down payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and for remaining Rs.1,10,000/- she had approached the opposite party for the loan. The opposite party No.2 being a finance company has granted a loan of Rs.1,10,000/- through Opposite party No.1 as they have a tie-up. That in the month of September,2014 a loan agreement entered between the parties as per which the loan was re-payable in 36 fixed monthly instalments @ Rs.5180/- per month. The instalments commenced from October,2014 that the complainant had paid the instalments regularly till October,2017 i.e., in total 29 instalments were paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,48,960/-s. But however, the collection agents of the opposite party No.1 had issued only 18 receipts and failed to issue 11 receipts despite receiving total 29 instalments. That the complainant is still due an amount of Rs.32,340/- and that she was ready to pay the said amount and asked for the receipts pertaining to already paid amounts. But the opposite party instead of issuing receipts has started demanding Rs.71,000/- and threatened to seize the vehicle if the due amounts are not cleared. That this is act of not issuing of receipts for the amounts already received and demanding excess amount of Rs.71,000/- and threatening to seize the vehicle, is nothing but cheating and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party. That the complainant had purchased the vehicle with her hard earn money and it is the only source of their livelihood and the whole family is dependent on the earning from the said vehicle. That such act of opposite parties had caused severe mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. As such the complaint was filed before the District Commission with a prayer to direct the opposite party to issue receipts for the paid amount and to pay compensation and costs.

04. The opposite party No.1 remained ex-parte.

05. The opposite party No.2 filed its written version while admitting the loan availed by the Respondent/complainant, fixed tenure of EMIs so also the EMI amount, but however contended that the complainant had not approached them directly but the said loan was provided by this opposite party through Opposite party No.1 by entering into a tripartite loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The opposite party further admitted that the complainant had paid the EMIs from October, 2014 to 31st December 2016. But, however disputed the payments under receipt dated 19.10.2017. The opposite party No.1 further pleads that the complainant had not paid all the EMIs and when the demand for the same was made instead of making payments, the complainant had approached the Commission only with an intention to evade the said payments. That the complainant is a defaulter and that this opposite party will take necessary action against the complainant as per the agreement. As such there is no deficiency on the part of this Opposite party and prayed to dismiss the co